why turks have most higher r1a?

RajvoSa said:
However stays the fact that C turks are Turkicized Mongols.
Click to expand...

C hablogroups are mongol they are early asian group with tibet D hablogroups.

chinese, japanese, korean, and turks also native americans later mixed with them.

turks and native americans mixed with mongol peoples since 15.000 - 20.000 years.

if we say japanese and tibets are cousins, turks/native american/mongols have good relationships many years and they are cousins.

but dont come from same ancestors, but yes they are different peoples like a vikings and other tribes in europe

so turks main group are q hablogroup. but today we have so little q. max %10

our max hablogroup r1a (east iranian, slav)

we assimilated so many group our inside.(like a scythians.) central asia have many tribes

and turkey peoples are more greeks than turkic. you can see easy
 
RajvoSa said:
However stays the fact that C turks are Turkicized Mongols.
Click to expand...

yes kazakh peoples have many mongol hablogroup. but genghis khan create their army %70 turks and other tribes.

this is why kazakh peoples and other asimiliated and turkicized by turks.

and that peoples living many many years together. like a 15.000 - 20.000 years. i dont think they know who is real mongolian or turkic.

also you cant see turkic hablogroup q on central asia. really so low. how we can say who is real turk or not.

native americans more turk than central asians for me.

because they come from same ancestors with turks and they save genetic and cultural things (shame on to american invaders.)

later they mixed so many tribes in central asia. c, r1a, r1b, o, they are most mixed nations on the earth.

i think turks mean not a hablogroups. caucasoid/mongoloid mixed = turks
 
People, can you please learn to stop talking about modern people's origins as if they were entirely defined by their Y-DNA haplogroup (does only males or, even worse, males' Y chromosome define your ancestry in your mind?) and, even less correctly, basing your views on basal forms of Y-DNA haplogroups (N, Q, C) that have first appeared dozens of thousands of years ago as if these modern-day language families and ethnicities had lived in total isolation from each other and hadn't even changed much (through internal evolution and drift itself) in 20k, 30k or even 40k years?

You won't ever reach any right conclusion by looking only at Y-DNA with a very ancient TMRCA, and simply ignoring the specific subclades and the fact that these ethnic groups (like Proto-Turks) that existed 2000-2500 years ago couldn't belong to just one of the Y-DNA haplogroups and population structures that existed 20,000-50,000 years ago, in virtually unmixed form. This is not just nonsense, but potentially even a dangerous idea of long-term "purity". The linguistic, genetic and cultural divergence and evolution is just too much along so many milennia to establish direct correlations.
 
Last edited:
Expredel, care to expain what you disagree with about my post above? I'm interested to know, maybe I have understood something really wrong about the relationship of ethnicity and language to genetics, especially very upstream clades of Y-DNA. Giving a negative rate to a post without caring to say anything looks as if you just found something in the post unpleasant or inconvenient (maybe because now the reality of genetics does not look so simple?) - and not that you found something incorrect in it.
 
Ygorcs said:
People, can you please learn to stop talking about modern people's origins as if they were entirely defined by their Y-DNA haplogroup (does only males or, even worse, males' Y chromosome define your ancestry in your mind?) and, even less correctly, basing your views on basal forms of Y-DNA haplogroups (N, Q, C) that have first appeared dozens of thousands of years ago as if these modern-day language families and ethnicities had lived in total isolation from each other and hadn't even changed much (through internal evolution and drift itself) in 20k, 30k or even 40k years?

You won't ever reach any right conclusion by looking only at Y-DNA with a very ancient TMRCA, and simply ignoring the specific subclades and the fact that these ethnic groups (like Proto-Turks) that existed 2000-2500 years ago couldn't belong to just one of the Y-DNA haplogroups and population structures that existed 20,000-50,000 years ago, in virtually unmixed form. This is not just nonsense, but potentially even a dangerous idea of long-term "purity". The linguistic, genetic and cultural divergence and evolution is just too much along so many milennia to establish direct correlations.
Click to expand...

so? this is works. we are related with native americans. and connection with y-dna hablogroup q. also languages have similarity. all the nations connected perfectly with y-dna and languages. i dont understand what do you wanna mean.

ethnicity, y-dna, and language going together.

and indo europeans only r1a (and r1b because cousins of them) other peoples are natives of their land before come aryan invaders. (J1,J2,I,G,Q and others)

this is reality accept or not

yes i know this is many many years. but that people small groups on the big world. they dont have connection so much to civilization beginning.

only 7.000 maybe low people live on the world that ages
 
XipeTotek said:
so? this is works. we are related with native americans. and connection with y-dna hablogroup q. also languages have similarity. all the nations connected perfectly with y-dna and languages. i dont understand what do you wanna mean.

ethnicity, y-dna, and language going together.

and indo europeans only r1a (and r1b because cousins of them) other peoples are natives of their land before come aryan invaders. (J1,J2,I,G,Q and others)

this is reality accept or not

yes i know this is many many years. but that people small groups on the big world. they dont have connection so much to civilization beginning.

only 7.000 maybe low people live on the world that ages
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't work. My point is that, to put it simple, you're wrong and you're trying to "play" with the data to portray a simple, straightforward and "pure" version of the history of peoples and languages that simply does not exist in any long term (let alone talking about basal Y-DNA haplogroups that are 20,000 or even 40,000 years old!), ignoring or preferring to overlook the inconvenient complexities that in fact surround population genetics, linguistics and the ethnogenesis of peoples and their cultures. If trying to devise simple and direct connections in just one of those fiels is already very complicated and often misleading, imagine trying to establish a direct and simple link between language, genetics and ethnicities going back dozens of thousands of years.

No, Y-DNA, autosomal DNA, languages and ethnic ientity do not always correlate perfectly, and when they do, as Maciamo has often demonstrated, it is just when you associate a certain language or ethnic group with a very specific and recent subclade downstream of such basal, extremely old haplogroups such as Q, N, C and so on. They're talking about things like R1b-Z2103, R1a-M417, and so on - and even there the correlation is not seamless and absolutely certain due to many cultural and linguistic changes since a few milennia ago (let alone 30,000 years!).

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that you can't expect anyone who knows a modicum of historical linguistics and population genetics to take these speculations seriously (they aren't even hypothesis, for they have no solid and systematic sources in the scientific research). Not things like "Turks and Native Americans are 'the' Q people, they are still very similar, even their languages are still similar, there are even many identical words and so on - yes, even after 20,000 years of cultural and genetic divergence, believe it or not".

But if you want to keep pretending that these things are really as simple and easy as you want them to be, allowing you to have fun establishing imaginary classifications and categories associating Y-DNA, languages, ethnic identity and autosomal genetics as if they all remain perfectly correlated to each other even after 10,000 or even 30,000 years of historic evolution... well, who am I to kill your playful joy by stating the hard and inconvenient truth, right? ;-)

It's just a pity that you apparently refuse to go to the next step and gain more real, scientific knowledge about the matters that you are interested in. In a way, you're right, because the conclusions of science tends to be much less "fantastic" and nicely simple than these fanciful "theories".
 
Ygorcs said:
Expredel, care to expain what you disagree with about my post above?
Click to expand...
The large Y haplogroups in Europe bottleneck around 3000 BC. For example, 99% of R1a Turks, Russians, and Indians share common descent 5500 years ago. Your argument would hold ground for MtDNA, but not for Y-DNA.
 
Expredel said:
The large Y haplogroups in Europe bottleneck around 3000 BC. For example, 99% of R1a Turks, Russians, and Indians share common descent 5500 years ago. Your argument would hold ground for MtDNA, but not for Y-DNA.
Click to expand...

I definitely don't think that example holds for very basal haplogroups like Q and C, especially if the main intent of that comparison is to assert a supposed close similarity of Turks and Native Americans whose ancestors isolated themselves completely from the Asian Q-carrying populations between 15,000 and 20,000 years ago. There is no common recent source for all those people carrying Q.

Also, my point was not just about the age of Y-DNA haplogroups, but also about the lack of very strong correlation, after thousands of years of mixing, between a thousands-year-old upstream Y-DNA clade and a specific language and ethnicity spoken today. There were some specific subclades even of G2a, J2b and Q1a that, as Maciamo have demonstrated, were correlated with the spread of IE, not some other "exotic stuff" - simply because virtually no society, even in the past, was completely homogeneous in its Y-DNA beyond the local patrilinear effects.

That's true especially if you consider the last milennia where inter-ethnic mixing became much more intense, and there were several profound Y-DNA local founder effects, sometimes favoring a certain "rare" Y-DNA even though the language family spoken by the population was not born in any close association with Y-DNA haplogroup (an obvious example is that the range of modern Indo-European-speaking populations includes specific nations with a lot of R1a, R1b, N1C, J2, G2, and so on). There is no way that, without several ancient DNA samples, you can simply say that, generically, "Q" is Turkic and Native American, "C" is Mongol, "O" is Chinese, etc. That's too vague and too simplistic.
 
Ygorcs said:
There is no way that, without several ancient DNA samples, you can simply say that, generically, "Q" is Turkic and Native American, "C" is Mongol, "O" is Chinese, etc. That's too vague and too simplistic.
Click to expand...

The proper scientific approach is to carefully record and organize all the available data and make it easily accessible. Having discussions about narrow interpretations of carefully selected facts that support a particular viewpoint is futile.
 
R1A is main paternal haplogroup ancient indo-iranian tribes. central asia was conquered by altaic people this indo-iranian tribes are assimilated by altaic people. this haplogroup(R1A) passed altaic people from indo-iranian tribes.
 
proto-turks heavily mixed tocharians, scythians, sakas. proto-turks conqueror assimilated this people. altai have less population, it increased rate of this haplogroup(r1a).
 
The Turks didn't "conquer" the Scythians; the Scythians beat them and ran off with the Turk females, who probably found Scythians more attractive and wealthier. That's why Turks have so much R1a, and not just R1; Q1a in Turks also comes from Scythians.

The material culture of R1a "Turks" was simply a continuation of the Scythian tradition; at best these people spoke an IndoEuropean-Altaic pidgin language.
 
central asia was heavy influenced by turkic-mongolid invasions & migrations and became turkic during medieval ages
R1a-Z93 frequency among turkic speakers are traced back to iranian saka nomads and sogodians and bactrians etc.
and maybe R1b-M73 turks are tocharian remnants !
 
Ygorcs said:
People, can you please learn to stop talking about modern people's origins as if they were entirely defined by their Y-DNA haplogroup (does only males or, even worse, males' Y chromosome define your ancestry in your mind?) and, even less correctly, basing your views on basal forms of Y-DNA haplogroups (N, Q, C) that have first appeared dozens of thousands of years ago as if these modern-day language families and ethnicities had lived in total isolation from each other and hadn't even changed much (through internal evolution and drift itself) in 20k, 30k or even 40k years?

You won't ever reach any right conclusion by looking only at Y-DNA with a very ancient TMRCA, and simply ignoring the specific subclades and the fact that these ethnic groups (like Proto-Turks) that existed 2000-2500 years ago couldn't belong to just one of the Y-DNA haplogroups and population structures that existed 20,000-50,000 years ago, in virtually unmixed form. This is not just nonsense, but potentially even a dangerous idea of long-term "purity". The linguistic, genetic and cultural divergence and evolution is just too much along so many milennia to establish direct correlations.
Click to expand...

There are more defined groups, that shows cultural spread, based on y-dna. Female mtDNA doesn't show such boundaries - and are spread over any such cultural borders. More or less, but paternal heritage has been defining nationality of a child, expect for some reasons in colonial times, that created Metiz or negro slaves, where if parent was freeman and even white, then child of slave mother was still slave. And Brasil also has interesting history, that shaped Brasil nation with foreigners marrying multiple native women. Both Americas are rather anomaly, when it comes to defining child's nationality, where everyone else define it by father side and then everywhere else exists language based assimilation.

Besides, then we need to be less racist towards Neanderthals, as X, possibly I and W mtDNA source might be Neandertalian females, but there are no y-DNA suspect for Neanderthalian origin, even if some parts of our y-DNA are shared. Also lots of genes, that define looks and immunity or resistance in Eurasian populations comes from Neanderthalians, but still - we consider, that we descended from Homo Sapiens, even though picture is a bit more complex, where modern sapiens went through hybridisation with Denovasians, Neanderthalians and possible other groups and that also left impact on racial features. I don't think, that we are Neanderthalians, though ;)
 
Talks about ancient Turks is complete bullsh!t. Turkic languages are quite recent(probably 2000 years old at max) split from Mongolian and both of their original paternal y-DNA is C, which is wayyy more archaical, than Q y-DNA and appeared long before other y-DNA groups...

If Turks were originally Q, they would share similarities to Na-Dene or other American native languages, which is not observed. What is known is that Turkic languages original homeland is located in western Mongolia, and that they are more closely related to Mongolian - according to their ancient tales their tribe split from Mongols and I would trust this source more, than what are claiming modern mixed population of Turkey, which is least Turkic possible of all other Turkic people.
Mongolian in turn is closely related with Tungusic and Tungusic might have been larger group and as they have impacted Korean and Japanese and somewhere along these mixings comes Liao valley civilization, that produced Uralic and Yukagir expansions and also shares linguistical links with Nivkh.

Turks in Turkey assimilated mainly Greeks, which was population, that originally was a result of Anatolian Indo-European invaders, who conquered and assimilated Hattusa(which originally were G Y-DNA), which in turn was in process of assimilation by colonists from Fertile Crescent(J Y-DNA).
 
laint said:
Talks about ancient Turks is complete bullsh!t. Turkic languages are quite recent(probably 2000 years old at max) split from Mongolian and both of their original paternal y-DNA is C, which is wayyy more archaical, than Q y-DNA and appeared long before other y-DNA groups...

If Turks were originally Q, they would share similarities to Na-Dene or other American native languages, which is not observed. What is known is that Turkic languages original homeland is located in western Mongolia, and that they are more closely related to Mongolian - according to their ancient tales their tribe split from Mongols and I would trust this source more, than what are claiming modern mixed population of Turkey, which is least Turkic possible of all other Turkic people.
Mongolian in turn is closely related with Tungusic and Tungusic might have been larger group and as they have impacted Korean and Japanese and somewhere along these mixings comes Liao valley civilization, that produced Uralic and Yukagir expansions and also shares linguistical links with Nivkh.

Turks in Turkey assimilated mainly Greeks, which was population, that originally was a result of Anatolian Indo-European invaders, who conquered and assimilated Hattusa(which originally were G Y-DNA), which in turn was in process of assimilation by colonists from Fertile Crescent(J Y-DNA).
Click to expand...

Your theories about Turkic language (just like about Balto-Slavic) are just funny, nothing more. What would you say about Oghur language? It is thought to have been spoken even in period from 3000 BC - 500 BC. And, at the end of the day, which language spoke Hunns ? Proto-Bulgars? Xiongnu warriors? (If Turkic is old just 2000 years) ??? :)
 
laint said:
and both of their original paternal y-DNA is C
Click to expand...

Haplogroup C was not so strong component among proto-Turks.
Kazakhs with haplogroup C are just turkicized Mongols, and they are aware of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top